~ Cato

The guiding principle of Donald Berwick, recess-appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:

"The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property."

Precisely – that’s why we cannot entrust it to you (or any committee). You are right, health care is a system, an economic system. As such, it is governed by the aggregate decisions of individuals. You are trying to change that system into a bureaucracy.

~ byline Cato

My comments in italics

From a news story ...

Employers with more than 50 workers could face big penalties even if they are trying to do the right thing by offering health insurance to their workers. For example, they could be fined $2,000 per worker if they fail to follow Washington's rules in providing "affordable" coverage.

Companies are required to calculate whether their health plans meet Washington's afford ability test by determining each employee's household income, not just what they are paying the worker. To say this presents a significant challenge is an understatement. But if employers fail, they could face fines of $100,000 or more.

Uh, sorry, my company has no business knowing what my “household income” is! More tyranny!

Health Care Law Killing Millions

The headlines today trumpeted this tidbit

Obama says health care law already helps millions (AP)

well, here is a news flash ...

Seneca says health care law hurting scores of millions (SN)

Taking a Break

Some of my loyal followers have wondered why I have not posted anything in a while. The answer is that quite frankly I am worn out from all the previous posting. I had thought that Mr Obama and his posse would read a few installments of my diatribes and fulminations and on that decide that it would really be best if they changed their course of action.

Alas, all this was to no avail. They and their ilk persist in their run to destruction.

Couple this with the fact that I was asked by a group of businessmen to come address their group because they had "panties in a wad" concerns about the recent Health Care bill. Considering that I do not work for free, and wanting to test whether they wanted substance, or just some free finger-painting directed against Obama, as opposed to a wake-up call to the creeping cancer of government of which Obama is simply a symptom, I indicated that it would take an advance payment of $700 bucks, plus the condition that the floor would be mine, and the condition that the presentation would be a no holds barred, "No Apologies Tour" with equal opportunity of scorn heaped upon them, for thinking that a Republican administration would fare them any better than a Democratic one, as well as scorn on the liberals for thinking that Obama was going to save the planet.

The businessman's group failing the screening test, I was informed that although the information was good and that they needed to hear it, that the venue was "not the right one". Whew ... that saved me a lot of headache. In my earlier day, I would have created the entire presentation before finding out whether I would be on the schedule or not. In this instance, I did not think about it at all.

FTATHTRIO

Health Care Suicide Pact Legislation Passes - An "I Told You So"

[Updated 2/23/2010]

From a recent story  concerning the recently passage of the Health Care Suicide Pact Legislation

".......By then, most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — either through an employer, through a government program or by buying it for themselves. Those who refuse will face penalties from the IRS. ..."

Yes - And somewhere in these files at the Seneca Times there are posts  asking and answering the rhetorical questions about who really stands to benefit from these changes where everybody is required to buy something. 

I hope some of you out there took my advice and bought stock in the boxcar manufacturing companies. Oops, my bad, I meant the health insurance companies for THAT is who stands to make the money. Well, them and the government machine.

[update] - And looking again at the story itself on the Yahoo news page, I see a sidebar with the following headline

Health law will make calorie counts hard to ignore

Um Hummm,

First comes the requirement of posting of the calorie info at the restaurants,

Next comes the rules that say the restaurant has to report what meals you ate;

Next comes reporting of THAT info and the calorie counts to the government (because after all fatness IS a national emergency and the government has to pay for your illnesses, and your fatness is driving up the cost of health care, right);

Next comes the government regulation that everyone join a gym;

Next comes the requirement that all the gymsreport to the health Czar on how many workout you do a week;

Next comes the penalty or fine for eating too many French Fres and/or not going to the gym enough (call this a fries/gym ratio requirement),

Next comes the government Gestapo showing  up at your door with an arrsest warrant in hand to send you to a government run fat re-education camp;

and lastly comes ........  the Gulag.

All this, of course, a result of having a society that has educated its children to think it is our responsibility to feed starving children in Africa - which of course results in there being more children born in Africa, which of course means we get to do even more "helping".

It Just Gets Crazier

Making a last-ditch effort to save his health care overhaul, President Barack Obama on Monday put forward a nearly $1 trillion, 10-year compromise that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriate consumers.

Cato says, What an idiot!

a) The insurance companies make somewhere between 2-6 % profits, so they cannot be gouging the consumer. The root cause is simply the perception that the cost of health care is "too high*", not the insurance companies, which he is using as a scapegoat.

b) If consumers are infuriated by an insurance company, they should just be able to go to another one. If you opened up the insurance market to true competition, that could happen.

c) It’s not the government’s job to appease infuriated consumers, it’s the market’s job.

d) Now we suddenly have another manufactured faux crisis – infuriated consumers. Might these be the same consumers ginned up by ACORN to protest foreclosures of houses … uh, that should never have been purchased by those consumers in the first place - and indeed would never have been made available to those consumers had it not been for government meddling in the housing finance business?


~Seneca's Commentary
Right On, Right  On, Right On


* Concerning the "cost" of health care. This too is just a red herring meant to stir up the people. Talking about the high cost of health care begs the question "high cost compared to what"? Tony Parker's salary, the cost of a basketball ticket, death, bones hanging out your arm, kids that die??

Quite frankly the cost of health care is NOT "high". Now, if you want to grouse about health care, grouse about the delivery system and the dismissiveness of most doctors, and how if you have a 10 o'clock appointment, you are kept waiting till 11:30. If you want to grouse, how about grousing to Congress about a patient's rights act which would require the doctor to actually treat you within 10 minutes of your appointment or else he pays you for YOUR time waiting on him? And NO I do not care about how many little Johinnies he had to see before ME.  He made an appointment - I was there - he should be also. A few hundred dollars in time penalties with a posting to the internet will correct this problem quickly.

Regan Speaks on Socialism

It is refreshing to hear an intelligent person make a point. He would never make it in Obama's Washington. They need a Dumb Ass Vaccine there.

Follow the Money

Do we really think that the government even if they do "take over the health care insurance business" is going  to operate the health care insurance system themselves?

Hardly. Do not be surprised if the government side of the insurance business will be run by the insurance industry itself, or at least one or two of the major players.

As was explained to me many years ago by a friend, contrary to the idea that businesses want no regulation or less regulation, the ugly fact is that businesses WANT regulation because that levels the playing field and they know exactly what the competition can and cannot do. This knowledge then reduces their risk of operating their business and that is why contrary to their protests, they actually want it.

So then, if this national health care thing comes to pass, be ready to see the stock price of some of the players  move higher.

Would not be at all surprised to find that behind those closed mahogany doors such conversations along these lines has already been had and the template agreed upon.

Coming Soon To a Hospital Near You?

Welcome to Obamunism.

Two "Angry Mob" Questions

~Cato
August 11, 2009

Just realized the difference between the present health system, run by insurance companies, and any proposed government plan. Here are two questions to ask your congressman:

1. Insurance companies have a set schedule of benefits that are covered, and which we know about before we buy. Where is the schedule that tells us what specific benefits will we get if we approve this government plan?

2.If an insurance company treats us wrongly, or denies benefits illegitimately, we can sue them. Will we be able to sue the government for wrongly denying treatment?

Health Care - The New Camel's Nose

~Cato

Obama on health care:

“End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we [the government] can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.”

_____**_____

Couple of points here:

First: I do not need the government letting me know, or letting my doctors know, about things that are, or are not, going to "help". That is what I already pay my doctor for, and seeing as how I have at least a wee bit of grey matter, I can manage just fine without "the man" telling me.

Second: In Arabia they actually have a way of getting across the idea that there is a real danger in granting an entity the license to do something under an "... at least" subterfuge. It is called the nose of the camel, and as we all know, the camel is NEVER satisfied with just his nose under the edge of the tent. Indeed, it does not take much to see that this health care initiative represents the nose of a very big camel.

Third: "Public Service" messages from an entity in whose best interest it is that I go ahead and die, are suspicious.

Fourth: Everyone focused on his conclusion: that maybe the woman should take a painkiller. What is more insidious is the fact that he thinks that it is the government that should get to help her determine that she do so - or actually that the government should get to dictate that she do so.

No, Mr Obama. These are not decisions that you “are going to have to make” – and the government does not need to let doctors know anything. They already know it. In addition, using advice and counsel from their physician, it is the patients (or their appointed family) that get to make these decisions on whether to take the pill or have the surgery, on whether to pull the plug, not some insurance company .... and certainly not you.

Both my parents have suffered life-threatening illnesses – never at any time did they have to make any decision about treatment based on the cost, which combined has run well over a hundred thousand dollars. Why? Because they had purchased supplemental and catastrophic coverage so they would not have to make decisions based on costs. My mother had a shattered knee that cost thirty grand, but it didn’t cost her a dime because she added a five dollar rider to her policy so that she would not have to make decisions based on cost.

She just had three MRIs, all covered by Medicare. My father’s heart-bypass operation was completely covered by Medicare. My parents were never denied any medical coverage the doctor ordered. (And by the way, my parents raised four children with no insurance at all, except for one three-year period when my father worked for a large company, when my and my brother's birth were covered.)So don’t give us this malarkey about you, or Medicare or Medicaid or private insurers making medical decisions. They practice insurance. Let the doctors practice medicine and provide all the advice I need. I as a person paying the freight am the only person we need making decisions. I do not need to give the government any power of attorney over my life.

The truth of the matter is that Obama is wanting Medicare and Medicaid in some reconstituted form to not act as insurance, but to act as arbiters of whether a procedure is going to be provided.

Avoid Bankruptcy - Spend More

In an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes, Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51162

Hold on. You mean the health-care plan is a business strategy to avoid bankruptcy? Silly me -- I thought it was about taking care of sick people.

These people are morons! First, Keynesian spending has never been known to work. You tell me that it worked for Roosevelt. Oh really? Then are we to look forward to seven years of depression with 25 % unemployment? Second, health-care spending cannot possibly bring in more net revenue. You are adding expenses when you broaden coverage. But then, Obama was never about revenue. Remember when he was reminded that cutting capital-gains taxes would increase revenue, but responded that "fairness" (rich people paying more) was his objective?

This is worse than gambling. At least when you gamble you take money and bet it on something that might bring in money. But this is like hitting your mom up for money to invest at the track - and then instead, spending that money boozing with your friends. These legislators show classic signs of addition: foolish risk, denial, lying, destructive behavior.

~Cato

Obama to Ration Health Care

From Good Morning America, 24 June

OBAMA: The measure of the quality of care is not quantity, but whether or not it is making you better. What we've said is, let's put out the research, let's study and figure out what works and what doesn't.

SAWYER: Will there be a board making Solomonic decisions about best practices --

OBAMA: What I've suggested is is that we have a -- a commission that helps -- made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best practices.


Hey Obama - Cato speaking here - we already have someone to determine best practices. It's called your family doctor and his team of specialists. What does a committee know about the best way to treat me? What you really want is someone to ration and distribute "best practices - someone to determine the best economy of practice (aka rationing/treatment delay tactics), not what is the best medical treatment practice.

There is no other reason for a higher "commission". Typical liberal, using words that say one thing, but meaning another. Tell you what. You tell me exactly what this commission will do, then we'll see if the American people want it.

Who Needs Whom?

This was too good to pass up and I post it so as to add commentary to the effect that as you read the piece, keep in mind that after it is all divided up, those on the right do not need anything from those on the left, while those on the left must prey on others (the right) so as to fund their pie-in-the-sky, kool-aid ideas.

Another comment, regarding health care, although I agree with the letter that health care is not a right (for someone else to be required to provide), contrary to this letter, neither is it a privilege. (That is an improper use of the word, and to correct thinkers, words do matter.) Health care is neither a right or a privilege. It is merely another something that if available, I can buy - if I have earned and saved the money.

And let's not hear anything about "affordable" health care. The available health care in America today outstrips anything that existed when I was growing up, and all of it is affordable - it is just that you need to plan for your expenditure on that product if you want it. Generally what people mean when they put both feet firmly on the slippery slope of "affordable" health care, is to mean that it should be provided "at a price I want to pay." Sorry boys and girls, that attitude bespeaks of socialism and collectivism. We live in a free market and if your doctor wants "too much" then you cannot use the power of "The State" to force him to charge less, nor is it morally right to use the power of The State to rob me so as to subsidize the doctor so you can have things at a price you think is "affordable". Bottom line, you can find another doctor, or just "man-up" and not go - just like we did when I was growing up.

This "Letter from a Law Student" was borrowed from Neal Boortz's Nuze.

Dear American Liberals, Leftists, Social Progressives, Socialists, Marxists and Obama Supporters,

We've stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what's right. So let's just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.

So here's a model separation agreement. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That's going to be the difficult part, but I'm sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can have those.
You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we'll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.

We'll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and we'll let you have NBC and Hollywood.

You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us.

You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won't have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine.
You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.

We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right.

We will keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place "Imagine." I'd like to teach the world to sing "Kumbaya" or "We are the world."
We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete.

In the friendly spirit of parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15years.

Sincerely,
John J Wall law student and an American
P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda